Anyone seeing a marked improvement with #8208 compared to what they have been using? r in s.

Ray- I have some of the old Thunderbird 8208 left and it just flat works for me and the ppc. I bought some IMR-8208 down in Phoenix one year and it turned hot on me and I had to get rid of it. What imr 8208 are you talking about. Is this a new product?
Pegleg

The new stuff looks good , but has not been out long enough to really know.
Butch

i need powder and i like new toys but i will watch this new stuff for a while. i hope it will help me some but ---- just wait n see.

If you are really interested there is an article about it in the current PS and several test reports on benchrest.com. Hodgon is also posting allegedly tested load data on their website.

The new Hodgdon's 2010 annual manual has three stories in it as well as loading data for numerous cartridges.

Alan

My interest stems from wanting to know if proven winners in the BR game are doing even better with this powder. Don't bother looking for it on line, it's all gone, but what you must do if you want to buy is join a back order list, about the only chance you have. I would say in two days shooting @300 yards, I don't see how any other powder could be better. r in s.

Is that anything like the Tubal 2000 stuff that a lot of shooters are using at the intermediate distances?

Rich

quote:

Originally posted by Idaho Sharpshooter:
Is that anything like the Tubal 2000 stuff that a lot of shooters are using at the intermediate distances?

Rich

Tubal 2000 has a burn rate very similar to 4198, and Tubal 3000 is close to surplus 8208. Neither are widely used as there's not much of them around. The new 8208XBR is close in burn rate to 4895.

quote:

Originally posted by ray in seattle:
Anyone seeing a marked improvement with #8208 compared to what they have been using? r in s.

So far I love it.

Jerry Stiller of Viper actions has a very large quantity of Tubal for sale I believe $10 per pound. He will sell as small as 8 lbs. He has it in 44lb. containers.
Butch

I have been having excellent luck with it in two different AR's.

Bullet weight 60 grains and 77. Excellent velocity, accuracy and clean burning.

quote:

Originally posted by Pegleg:
Ray- I have some of the old Thunderbird 8208 left and it just flat works for me and the ppc. I bought some IMR-8208 down in Phoenix one year and it turned hot on me and I had to get rid of it. What imr 8208 are you talking about. Is this a new product?
Pegleg

Pegleg, small world, I know the old IMR 8208 surplus you are talking about. I got an 8 pound jug of it YEARS ago (late 80's?). It was used to load military M-196 (5.56 tracer). I wasn't impressed with it in .223 Rem. And YES.... it was HOT for the recommended loads. And the velocities produced with the loads I considered safe weren't impressive and accuracy was mediocre.

I still have the load data I used and am eager to compare this with the load recommendations for the new stuff.

That said I haven't tried the new IMR version.

I think the new IMR 8208 is slower. I have 6-8pounders and haven't tried any yet.
Butch

I have had a few sessions with it. (lot # 48xx) It seems to work well in my .223 rem and .243 WSSM, but was not any improvement over N-135, really. It was not acceptable in my 6BR, 22BR, and is too slow for the 30BR. As I understand the "new" 8028 it is somewhere between N-133 and N-135. For what it's worth- the "new--new" reformulated again 8028 is supposed to be closer to N-135 than N-133, according to the revised data from Hodgon.

I would agree that the burn rate in the .223 is more 135 than 133, actually with heavy bullets (77 grain SMK's) I would say close to VV 140!

I've loaded up 5 differnt bullets in both 223 and 22-250. May load some for 20 vartarg and 20 tacical. Will try it out within the next week and post results
GWB

Fired by a friend in my rifle with my loads... This load is 1/10th of a grain over .223 Rem's "book maximum," However it was fired in a Colt 5.56 chamber.